Start or stop a call, WhatsApp, or SMS campaign. Starting validates channel config, schedule, and balance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| campaign_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| message | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate mutability (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false), and idempotency (idempotentHint=true). The description adds behavioral context by stating that starting validates channel config, schedule, and balance. This complements the annotations without contradicting them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('start or stop a campaign'), and immediately provides validation details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, one enum), the description is complete enough. It explains the primary behavior and validation logic. The output schema likely describes return values, so no need to repeat here. One could argue that the effect of 'stop' is not described, but the action enum makes it clear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers both parameters (campaign_id, action) with clear types and an enum for action. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no additional parameter details beyond the action names. It implicitly references 'start' and 'stop' but does not clarify data types or constraints. The schema is self-explanatory, so the description adds minimal value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: starting or stopping a call, WhatsApp, or SMS campaign. It specifies the action (start/stop) and the resource (campaign). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_campaign (which might update other fields) and create_campaign.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: to start or stop a campaign. It mentions that starting triggers validation of channel config, schedule, and balance. However, it does not explicitly indicate when not to use it or suggest alternatives (e.g., for updating other campaign attributes).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct resources and actions clearly (e.g., create_assistant vs create_campaign). However, there is some overlap like get_outbound_assistants vs get_assistants and list_all_phone_numbers vs get_phone_numbers, causing minor ambiguity.
Tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., create_document, delete_label, get_voices). Only minor deviations exist, such as generate_ai_reply and list_all_phone_numbers, but overall the pattern is maintained.
With 75 tools, the server is excessively large. Although the domain is broad (assistants, calls, messaging, etc.), the number of tools makes it difficult for agents to navigate and select the correct one, reducing coherence.
The tool set covers CRUD operations for most resources, plus webhooks, AI replies, and reference data fetching. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no delete_conversation, no attach phone number to assistant), but the surface is largely comprehensive for the platform's purpose.
